Gamma Ray Bomb

[Eric Moore]

Work is being done on a Gamma Ray Bomb. See:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1018361,00.html

How would a weapon like this compare to the current generation of
nukes?
Just curious.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Eric Moore" > wrote in message
om...
> Work is being done on a Gamma Ray Bomb. See:
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1018361,00.html
>
> How would a weapon like this compare to the current generation of
> nukes?
> Just curious.

It sounds bogus to me.

I'm no physicist but a claim like

"Just one gram of the explosive would store more energy than
50kg of conventional TNT"

Needs a lot of evidence and thus far I have seen none

Keith

[David Bromage]

Keith Willshaw wrote:
> "Just one gram of the explosive would store more energy than
> 50kg of conventional TNT"
>
> Needs a lot of evidence and thus far I have seen none

In theory that's correct. There is a simple formula to work it out. :)

Cheers
David

[Andreas Parsch]

Keith Willshaw wrote:

>
> It sounds bogus to me.


It does indeed sound very strange, but at least it doesn't immediately
appear to violate any basic law of physics (as opposed to some other
claims of "superweapons" ;-) ).

The whole concept sounds a bit like a laser, except that the "decay"
happens in the nucleus and not the electron shell.

Andreas

[A Smith]

do you have any web site about gamma ray bomb???

David Bromage wrote:

> Keith Willshaw wrote:
> > "Just one gram of the explosive would store more energy than
> > 50kg of conventional TNT"
> >
> > Needs a lot of evidence and thus far I have seen none
>
> In theory that's correct. There is a simple formula to work it out. :)
>
> Cheers
> David
>

[Jeb Hoge]

Andreas Parsch > wrote in message >...
> Keith Willshaw wrote:
>
> >
> > It sounds bogus to me.
>
>
> It does indeed sound very strange, but at least it doesn't immediately
> appear to violate any basic law of physics (as opposed to some other
> claims of "superweapons" ;-) ).
>
> The whole concept sounds a bit like a laser, except that the "decay"
> happens in the nucleus and not the electron shell.

Gamma rays, hmm. Hulk smash?

[robert arndt]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> "Eric Moore" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Work is being done on a Gamma Ray Bomb. See:
> >
> > http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1018361,00.html
> >
> > How would a weapon like this compare to the current generation of
> > nukes?
> > Just curious.
>
> It sounds bogus to me.

So do most of your replies!
>
> I'm no physicist but a claim like

And no scientist, bioengineer, intelligence operative, representative
of any Govt., and no aviation expert either...
>
> "Just one gram of the explosive would store more energy than
> 50kg of conventional TNT"
>
> Needs a lot of evidence and thus far I have seen none
>
> Keith

What do you want the US Govt. to do... Fed-Ex one to your doorstep
when its completed?

Rob

p.s. Who needs a troll when you have a resident egomaniac like Keith
Wilshaw at RAM?

[John S. Shinal]

(Eric Moore) wrote:

> This article goes into more detail on the topic:
>http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994049

Hmm. Not as crackpot as I first assumed.

I have to wonder how you keep this stuff from spontaneously
releasing the energy. There could easily be a cascade effect if a few
atoms release in a half-life style decay sequence.

"Here, try this new hand grenade. I'll be watching from the
lead bunker back at 10,000 South."

:-/




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Denyav]

>It does indeed sound very strange, but at least it doesn't immediately
>appear to violate any basic law of physics (as opposed to some other
>claims of "superweapons" ;-) ).

Every "superweapon" of 20th century violated basic laws of physics that were
prevailing before Dec 14,1900.
Next generation of superweapons will also surely violate basic laws of physics
that we learned in 20th century.
Orthodoxy in science was always a major problem.


>The whole concept sounds a bit like a laser, except that the "decay"
>happens in the nucleus and not the electron shell.

Thats correct,but much more interestingly you can achive similar interactions
if you place materia in a very intense EM field,which makes nuclear wepons very
dangerous to store anywhere if you your opponent has EM weapons capable of
recovering initial energy anywhere they want to.
BTW new physics is accepts the non locality and zero point energy which
apparently extremely well understood by pre 1945 German scientists.
Besides of Penrose and Zeilingers works you may also want to check out works of
Haisch,Puthoff and Rueda for more info.

[Keith Willshaw]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Eric Moore" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > Work is being done on a Gamma Ray Bomb. See:
> > >
> > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1018361,00.html
> > >
> > > How would a weapon like this compare to the current generation of
> > > nukes?
> > > Just curious.
> >
> > It sounds bogus to me.
>
> So do most of your replies!
> >
> > I'm no physicist but a claim like
>
> And no scientist, bioengineer, intelligence operative, representative
> of any Govt., and no aviation expert either...

Correct

> >
> > "Just one gram of the explosive would store more energy than
> > 50kg of conventional TNT"
> >
> > Needs a lot of evidence and thus far I have seen none
> >
> > Keith
>
> What do you want the US Govt. to do... Fed-Ex one to your doorstep
> when its completed?
>

No I want more factual information from the people who wrote
the article

> Rob
>
> p.s. Who needs a troll when you have a resident egomaniac like Keith
> Wilshaw at RAM?

Pot Kettle etc

Keith

[Walter Luffman]

On 13 Aug 2003 19:45:06 -0700, (Eric Moore)
wrote:

>Work is being done on a Gamma Ray Bomb. See:
>
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1018361,00.html
>
> How would a weapon like this compare to the current generation of
>nukes?
> Just curious.

Well, according to Stan Lee and the late Jack Kirby a gamma-ray bomb
won't necessarily kill you; sometimes it just turns you into a big,
green, angry creature that wants to smash things. At least that was
what happened in the comics back in the 1960s; the story's been
revised a few times since then.

___
Walter Luffman Medina, TN USA
Amateur curmudgeon, equal-opportunity annoyer

[John Mullen]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "Eric Moore" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > > > Work is being done on a Gamma Ray Bomb. See:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1018361,00.html
> > > >
> > > > How would a weapon like this compare to the current generation
of
> > > > nukes?
> > > > Just curious.
> > >
> > > It sounds bogus to me.
> >
> > So do most of your replies!
> > >
> > > I'm no physicist but a claim like
> >
> > And no scientist, bioengineer, intelligence operative, representative
> > of any Govt., and no aviation expert either...
>
> Correct
>
> > >
> > > "Just one gram of the explosive would store more energy than
> > > 50kg of conventional TNT"
> > >
> > > Needs a lot of evidence and thus far I have seen none
> > >
> > > Keith
> >
> > What do you want the US Govt. to do... Fed-Ex one to your doorstep
> > when its completed?
> >
>
> No I want more factual information from the people who wrote
> the article

The New Scientist article the Grauniad one was based on is quite interesting

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994049

Best

John

[Walt BJ]

So - "Four years ago scientists at U/Texas showed how to trigger a
change in half-life." Funny we never read about it in Science, Science
News, Nature or Scientific American nor has the Nobel Committee acted
on this. Nothing (other than the journalists' citation) has been
bruited about on this. Personally, my idea is that the wishful
thinkers are kicking about the old matter-antimatter reaction. Only
two problems - 1) making a significant quantity of antimatter and 2)
keeping it from reacting with ordinary matter. Solve those two
problems and you have a gamma ray bomb plus any size weapon you want.
Meanwhile I'll be searching UT to see what they actually did four
years ago.
Walt BJ

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
"Keith Willshaw" > wrote:

> "Eric Moore" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Work is being done on a Gamma Ray Bomb. See:
> >
> > http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1018361,00.html
> >
> > How would a weapon like this compare to the current generation of
> > nukes?
> > Just curious.
>
> It sounds bogus to me.
>
> I'm no physicist but a claim like
>
> "Just one gram of the explosive would store more energy than
> 50kg of conventional TNT"
>
> Needs a lot of evidence and thus far I have seen none

An anti-matter bomb would fit the description, and most
of its energy yield would be gamma rays.

[Scott Ferrin]

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 19:58:42 -0700, Steve Hix >
wrote:

>In article >,
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote:
>
>> "Eric Moore" > wrote in message
>> om...
>> > Work is being done on a Gamma Ray Bomb. See:
>> >
>> > http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1018361,00.html
>> >
>> > How would a weapon like this compare to the current generation of
>> > nukes?
>> > Just curious.
>>
>> It sounds bogus to me.
>>
>> I'm no physicist but a claim like
>>
>> "Just one gram of the explosive would store more energy than
>> 50kg of conventional TNT"
>>
>> Needs a lot of evidence and thus far I have seen none
>
>An anti-matter bomb would fit the description, and most
>of its energy yield would be gamma rays.


That's what I thought too but they're not talking about anitmatter.
It does seem to have the same disadvantage though of having to "charge
the battery" so to speak. With a fission or fusion bomb you just
have to refine the materials and shape them properly and you get tons
of energy out of it. This one, like antimatter, doesn't exist
naturally for all practical purposes so you have to MAKE it. So while
it might be useful for specialized roles (a big bunker buster with
fewer ramifications than a nuke) it will never be cheap.

[Harry Andreas]

In article >,
(John S. Shinal) wrote:

> (Eric Moore) wrote:
>
> > This article goes into more detail on the topic:
> >http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994049
>
> Hmm. Not as crackpot as I first assumed.
>
> I have to wonder how you keep this stuff from spontaneously
> releasing the energy. There could easily be a cascade effect if a few
> atoms release in a half-life style decay sequence.

It does spontaneously release it's energy. That's what half-life is all about.
But it releases gamma rays, not particles, so there is no direct
comparison with a fission-type chain reaction.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[John S. Shinal]

(Harry Andreas) wrote:

>It does spontaneously release it's energy. That's what half-life is all about.

Sorry, I was unclear. I mean "without intentional triggering".
Of course you are correct here.

>But it releases gamma rays, not particles, so there is no direct
>comparison with a fission-type chain reaction.

I think I see what you mean - but they're saying this stuff is
(if I understand this) photon pumped - can the same radiation
mechanism that pumps it to a higher state cause a subsequent release ?



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 09:00:57 -0700, (Harry
Andreas) wrote in Message-Id:
>:

>In article >,
(John S. Shinal) wrote:
>
>> (Eric Moore) wrote:
>>
>> > This article goes into more detail on the topic:
>> >http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994049
>>
>> Hmm. Not as crackpot as I first assumed.
>>
>> I have to wonder how you keep this stuff from spontaneously
>> releasing the energy. There could easily be a cascade effect if a few
>> atoms release in a half-life style decay sequence.
>
>It does spontaneously release it's energy. That's what half-life is all about.

It would appear from the article, that the isomer's decay rate can be
modulated by varying the x-ray excitation input.

>But it releases gamma rays, not particles, so there is no direct
>comparison with a fission-type chain reaction.

Have you any idea how the gamma energy might be directly converted to
electrical?



--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,

[Denyav]

>So - "Four years ago scientists at U/Texas showed how to trigger a
>change in half-life." Funny we never read about it in Science, Science
>News, Nature or Scientific American nor has the Nobel Committee acted
>on this. Nothing (other than the

Scientists of Institute for Transuran in Karsruhe Germany reduced the decay
period of Jod128 from million years to a couple of minutes using laser
pulses,but they did not get any nobel prize either.

[Walt BJ]

Checked out the 'newscientist' link. Two points come to mind. First
the target has to be 'pumped up' to the higher energy state.
Sincenothing's free, you have to use more energy in the process than
you're going to recover. Gigawatt hours, most likely. Second, the
comment about spontaneous decay bothers me. Sounds like research on a
full-size weapon ought to be done someplace very remote, like
Kerguelen Island. Or the Moon's Farside. Also, what effect would a
cosmic ray have, impacting a charged nucleus? Remeber, you can't
screen against them . .
Walt BJ

[Keith Willshaw]

"Denyav" > wrote in message
...
> >So - "Four years ago scientists at U/Texas showed how to trigger a
> >change in half-life." Funny we never read about it in Science, Science
> >News, Nature or Scientific American nor has the Nobel Committee acted
> >on this. Nothing (other than the
>
> Scientists of Institute for Transuran in Karsruhe Germany reduced the
decay
> period of Jod128 from million years to a couple of minutes using laser
> pulses,but they did not get any nobel prize either.
>

Last I heard the highest number transuranic element was 118 and its
half life was less than a millisecond.

You've been hallucinating again Denyav

Keith

[Denyav]

>Last I heard the highest number transuranic element was 118 and its
>half life was less than a millisecond.
>
>You've been hallucinating again Denyav

It proves that your knowledge base needs updating Jod128 is highly radioactive
by-product of nuclear reactors,it decays into stabile Jod129 in million years.
Karlsruhe scientists shortened this process to a few minutes using laser
pulses.
If Karlsruhe is too far for you, you might want to contact University of
Strathclyde in Glasgow,Glasgow scientists were also equally succesful in this
issue.(They did not get any Nobel Prize either!)

[Keith Willshaw]

"Denyav" > wrote in message
...
> >Last I heard the highest number transuranic element was 118 and its
> >half life was less than a millisecond.
> >
> >You've been hallucinating again Denyav
>
> It proves that your knowledge base needs updating Jod128 is highly
radioactive
> by-product of nuclear reactors,it decays into stabile Jod129 in million
years.
> Karlsruhe scientists shortened this process to a few minutes using laser
> pulses.
> If Karlsruhe is too far for you, you might want to contact University of
> Strathclyde in Glasgow,Glasgow scientists were also equally succesful in
this
> issue.(They did not get any Nobel Prize either!)

What they did at Strathclyde was speed up the decay
of IODINE 129 to iodine 128

That element is represented by the letter I

At least try and get some of the basics right when you bull****
there's a good chap.

Keith

[Keith Willshaw]

"Denyav" > wrote in message
...
> >What they did at Strathclyde was speed up the decay
> >of IODINE 129 to iodine 128
> >
> >That element is represented by the letter I
> >
> >At least try and get some of the basics right when you bull****
>
> When I speak about Karlsruhe experiment I used German word for that.
>

The paper published by the group in the Journal of Physics
did not use the German word however and the work was carried out by
a consortium from the University of Strathclyde, Imperial College London,
Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, ITU Karlsruhe and the University of Jena

> >What they did at Strathclyde was speed up the decay
> >of IODINE 129 to iodine 128
> >
>
> Yes they did exactly that,or more precisely, shortened decaying time from
> 15,000,000 years to 25 minutes.
> Karlsruhe team was even a little bit more succesful.
>
> So from 15,000,000 years to a couple of minutes,you can call it a pretty
good
> acceleration.
>

The trouble is they used a hell of a lot of power in the
process 5x1020 Watts per square centimetre to be precise.

They are going to have to reduce that by several orders of
magnitude for commercial use.

Keith

[Denyav]

>The paper published by the group in the Journal of Physics
>did not use the German word however and the work was carried out by
>a consortium from the University of Strathclyde, Imperial College London,
>Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, ITU Karlsruhe and the University of Jena

Correct.


>The trouble is they used a hell of a lot of power in the
>process 5x1020 Watts per square centimetre to be precise.
>
>They are going to have to reduce that by several orders of
>magnitude for commercial use.
>

Thats correct too,but "military" priorities and spending habits are a little
bit different from commercial ones.
Thats the probably reason why military was many times in the history the first
user of advanced technologies .